Switch Theme:

How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

yukishiro1 wrote:
So you want your fellblade to cost the same as a castellan?

I rest my case.

That's more than a Castellan. And what exactly is your case besides "I don't like LOWs (or any unit over 200 points) and expect everything in the game to conform to my personal preferences"?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




2.5% more than a castellan. But this isn't productive. We obviously disagree fundamentally about what role LoWs should play in the game and we're not going to change each other's minds. I'd have been happy to see you get a 750 point fellblade if you were ok with mediocre but not totally unplayable LoWs, but you aren't interested in that, so my attempt to find common ground has clearly failed.

So if we're choosing between 880 point fellblades and 650 point fellblades, my vote goes for the status quo.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

yukishiro1 wrote:
2.5% more than a castellan. But this isn't productive. We obviously disagree fundamentally about what role LoWs should play in the game and we're not going to change each other's minds. I'd have been happy to see you get a 750 point fellblade if you were ok with mediocre but not totally unplayable LoWs, but you aren't interested in that, so my attempt to find common ground has clearly failed.

So if we're choosing between 880 point fellblades and 650 point fellblades, my vote goes for the status quo.

Shocking! Considering the opinion you have on what the relative usefulness of any 200+ point model should be that you explained in the Land Raider thread I never expected us to find common ground. Yes, we disagree fundamentally.
   
Made in de
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Breton wrote:




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Bretons post: I have to admit that I'm not familiar enough with the other codices to know who could build a brigade and still have points for their superheavy and who doesn't.
Nontheless I (personnally) find a batallion too low of a treshhold.


So let me get this straight, when you can take a Brigade at 2,000 points, but the SM/GK/Custodes/etc player almost assuredly can't especially with points left over for 400-600 point LoW - they're not playing at the same level? Isn't 2,000 points 2,000 points? Why is this batallion of 2,000 points a lower threshold than 2,000 brigade? I repeat the best solution is an Aux LoW Det in each codex tailored to that codex, but "Screw the other armies, I got my BladeSwordHammer" is another way you can go...


Responding to that: no, it was not my intention to specifically exclude some armies. My main point for a Battalion being to low of a treshhold is that (in my impression) most armies will build around at least one Battalion anyway (I might be wrong dir highly elite factions). And if almost everyone has a Battalion, adding a LoW slot would be the same as making the superheavy auxiliary free.

So as a modification for " add a LoW slot to the brigade" while still keeping that the detachment taken should be reasonable big,how about:
"A single LoW can be added to a detachment, if their collective points are >1500 points"
This way you would:
1. Limit it to >1500 points games
2. For cheap factions like IG this should mostly come down to a really big Battalion or a Brigade
3. For very expensive factions like Custodes a smaller detachment would suffice
4. You would still have 500 points for a second detachment to found up your army
5. There might be some possibilities like IG spearheads with tank Commanders, Leman Russ and a single Baneblade that at least for me sound fluffy and funny


Edit: Sorry I messed up the citation somehow

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 06:17:55


~6550 build and painted
819 build and painted
830 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 07:53:46


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




yukishiro1 wrote:
2.5% more than a castellan. But this isn't productive. We obviously disagree fundamentally about what role LoWs should play in the game and we're not going to change each other's minds. I'd have been happy to see you get a 750 point fellblade if you were ok with mediocre but not totally unplayable LoWs, but you aren't interested in that, so my attempt to find common ground has clearly failed.

So if we're choosing between 880 point fellblades and 650 point fellblades, my vote goes for the status quo.


Fundamentally, the decision that makes the most sense in regards to gameplay and balance is to remove everything that isn't a lord of war from the game. It would get rid of most of the unbalanced units, the majority of reroll auras and stratagem shenanigans, it would make spam difficult if not impossible, and with the incredibly reduced number of models on the table at any given moment, it would be much easier to make sensible points adjustments.

If you want to fix the representative scale of the game, as well as the potential balance issues that come from having both a grot and a knight on the same table, it honestly makes much more sense to remove the grot than it does to remove the knight. From a gameplay perspective.


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Pyroalchi wrote:
Responding to that: no, it was not my intention to specifically exclude some armies. My main point for a Battalion being to low of a treshhold is that (in my impression) most armies will build around at least one Battalion anyway (I might be wrong dir highly elite factions). And if almost everyone has a Battalion, adding a LoW slot would be the same as making the superheavy auxiliary free.

So as a modification for " add a LoW slot to the brigade" while still keeping that the detachment taken should be reasonable big,how about:
"A single LoW can be added to a detachment, if their collective points are >1500 points"
This way you would:
1. Limit it to >1500 points games
2. For cheap factions like IG this should mostly come down to a really big Battalion or a Brigade
3. For very expensive factions like Custodes a smaller detachment would suffice
4. You would still have 500 points for a second detachment to found up your army
5. There might be some possibilities like IG spearheads with tank Commanders, Leman Russ and a single Baneblade that at least for me sound fluffy and funny


on 1):
1500 points isn't even a "real" game size anymore.
Combat Patrol essentially disallows LoW already by forcing you use a patrol detachment unless you play knights, in which case you have to bring three helverines/warglaives/warhounds (those are LoW, too).
Incursion allows you to bring one LoW in theory, but you would lose most your CP for doing that and the missions screw you over for wasting half or more of your points on one unit.
Strike force and Onslaught are game sizes where LoW should not be a problem.
on 2) and 3): Factions aren't cheap or expensive by default, therefore putting them in categories like this doomed to fail. A unit of custodes guardians is pretty much the same price as a unit of trukk boyz.

In addition some LoW don't share a faction with the army they want to join. When you would bring knight, all units - including the knight - in that imperial brigade lose their detachment trait and all troops would lose objective secured.This is pretty much a strictly worse version of what we have now.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Jidmah wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.

Agreed, though I would argue that Baneblades are currently overpriced due to the Guard losing its discount on weapons it shares with factions with better BS. This is what we are arguing for, non-knight LOWs shouldn't be so good that they are an auto-include, nor should they be an anchor upon an army due to excessive costs in both points and CP. No unit should be relegated to "mediocrity" simply because some people don't like them or don't like their inclusion in "competitive" 40k, which by its very nature can ban any unit that TOs find is an issue in their particular preferred tournament format.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.

Agreed, though I would argue that Baneblades are currently overpriced due to the Guard losing its discount on weapons it shares with factions with better BS. This is what we are arguing for, non-knight LOWs shouldn't be so good that they are an auto-include, nor should they be an anchor upon an army due to excessive costs in both points and CP. No unit should be relegated to "mediocrity" simply because some people don't like them or don't like their inclusion in "competitive" 40k, which by its very nature can ban any unit that TOs find is an issue in their particular preferred tournament format.


I mean alot of the vehicle superheavies also share their obsolesence with normal vehicles. Mostly because their pricing is indeed off.
The same issue that plagues a baneblade is the same issue that plagues leman russes, overpriced for what it does.

Klos, without the stacking has the same issue as a predator. (HOWEVER unlike the predator there are ways to make the klos enter the field and be way too mean comparatively thanks to daemon keyword associated and the Invul save, yes that goes back into the whole stacking design issue but i'd still count it.)

And i am sure you could go further, minotaur f.e. which is in essence 2 basilisks firepower wise for the price of three with less durability overall.


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.

Agreed, though I would argue that Baneblades are currently overpriced due to the Guard losing its discount on weapons it shares with factions with better BS. This is what we are arguing for, non-knight LOWs shouldn't be so good that they are an auto-include, nor should they be an anchor upon an army due to excessive costs in both points and CP. No unit should be relegated to "mediocrity" simply because some people don't like them or don't like their inclusion in "competitive" 40k, which by its very nature can ban any unit that TOs find is an issue in their particular preferred tournament format.


I mean alot of the vehicle superheavies also share their obsolesence with normal vehicles. Mostly because their pricing is indeed off.
The same issue that plagues a baneblade is the same issue that plagues leman russes, overpriced for what it does.

Klos, without the stacking has the same issue as a predator. (HOWEVER unlike the predator there are ways to make the klos enter the field and be way too mean comparatively thanks to daemon keyword associated and the Invul save, yes that goes back into the whole stacking design issue but i'd still count it.)

And i am sure you could go further, minotaur f.e. which is in essence 2 basilisks firepower wise for the price of three with less durability overall.


Yes, most of the issues non-knight LOWs have can be traced back to gw's prices for them and other vehicles, particularly since CA2020. Though that issue goes back to CA2018 for any resin LOW and the plastic Stompa.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





The stompa is an overpriced do it yourself plastic garden gnome.
It is that since it's inception.
And it's a damn shame..

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in de
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






 Jidmah wrote:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
Responding to that: no, it was not my intention to specifically exclude some armies. My main point for a Battalion being to low of a treshhold is that (in my impression) most armies will build around at least one Battalion anyway (I might be wrong dir highly elite factions). And if almost everyone has a Battalion, adding a LoW slot would be the same as making the superheavy auxiliary free.

So as a modification for " add a LoW slot to the brigade" while still keeping that the detachment taken should be reasonable big,how about:
"A single LoW can be added to a detachment, if their collective points are >1500 points"
This way you would:
1. Limit it to >1500 points games
2. For cheap factions like IG this should mostly come down to a really big Battalion or a Brigade
3. For very expensive factions like Custodes a smaller detachment would suffice
4. You would still have 500 points for a second detachment to found up your army
5. There might be some possibilities like IG spearheads with tank Commanders, Leman Russ and a single Baneblade that at least for me sound fluffy and funny


on 1):
1500 points isn't even a "real" game size anymore.
Combat Patrol essentially disallows LoW already by forcing you use a patrol detachment unless you play knights, in which case you have to bring three helverines/warglaives/warhounds (those are LoW, too).
Incursion allows you to bring one LoW in theory, but you would lose most your CP for doing that and the missions screw you over for wasting half or more of your points on one unit.
Strike force and Onslaught are game sizes where LoW should not be a problem.
on 2) and 3): Factions aren't cheap or expensive by default, therefore putting them in categories like this doomed to fail. A unit of custodes guardians is pretty much the same price as a unit of trukk boyz.

In addition some LoW don't share a faction with the army they want to join. When you would bring knight, all units - including the knight - in that imperial brigade lose their detachment trait and all troops would lose objective secured.This is pretty much a strictly worse version of what we have now.


I'm not sure if that sufficiently adressed your critics but:
Regarding "factions should not be put into categories" I wasn't trying to do that. Hence the broad " if the detachment has >1500 points your good to go" guard for example can be "cheap" (guardsmen, sentinels, heavy weapons teams) filling a whole brigade until reaching that treshhold or expensive (fully kitted out tank commanders/Leman Russ.) Both would work.

Regarding LoWs not sharing the faction they wanted to join: that's a bit beside the point as my proposition was directed towards LoWs that belong to a faction but are currently difficult to take with that faction (so explicitly no Knights). I would keep the other ways to take superheavies like the SHA just add the option to take lets say a Fellblade into a sufficiently big SM detachment, a Baneblade in an IG detachment etc.
I also think (that's my personal taste and opinion) it would be a good thing if it would be easier for imperial factions to stick to their own superheavy instead of "just taking a knight". Again my view is IG centric but my impression is that when I have to take a Baneblade in a Superheavy Auxiliary anyway I might as well take a Knight which seems more competetive for its point cost. It would be another story if stickig to my own codex would save me some CP.
But of course then it would be fair to give those factions that don't have a superheavy some option. A SoB or Genestealer "Baneblade" for example.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 11:58:22


~6550 build and painted
819 build and painted
830 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Jidmah wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.


EXACTLY!

Theyre playable and do decent but won't run away with the game by themselves. In other words : picking them over a heavy support of the same army won't make your army worse.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

I don't see any issue with "mediocre" units, be it Lords of War or regular ones.

If everything you can field would at least be mediocre, that would be a big step up for a lot of unloved and forgotten units / wargear options.

   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't see any issue with "mediocre" units, be it Lords of War or regular ones.

If everything you can field would at least be mediocre, that would be a big step up for a lot of unloved and forgotten units / wargear options.


I love the look of the Spartan and i really want to get one for my Night lords eventually. but paying 510 pts + 3cp + losing the legion trait for a gloryfied land raider that eats its payload feels pretty bad.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 13:52:40


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Pyroalchi wrote:
Regarding LoWs not sharing the faction they wanted to join: that's a bit beside the point as my proposition was directed towards LoWs that belong to a faction but are currently difficult to take with that faction (so explicitly no Knights). I would keep the other ways to take superheavies like the SHA just add the option to take lets say a Fellblade into a sufficiently big SM detachment, a Baneblade in an IG detachment etc.
I also think (that's my personal taste and opinion) it would be a good thing if it would be easier for imperial factions to stick to their own superheavy instead of "just taking a knight". Again my view is IG centric but my impression is that when I have to take a Baneblade in a Superheavy Auxiliary anyway I might as well take a Knight which seems more competetive for its point cost. It would be another story if stickig to my own codex would save me some CP.
But of course then it would be fair to give those factions that don't have a superheavy some option. A SoB or Genestealer "Baneblade" for example.


You do know that the Adeptus Mechanicus LoW *are* Knights, right?

But yes, taking a LoW from another faction should be punished in the same way as taking a spearhead detachment from another faction. I really don't see why an army of marines with a baneblade behind them is any better or worse fluff-wise than an army of marines with 4 LRBT in tow.

My suggestion would probably look very similar to how fortifications work "Command Benefits: +3 Command points if every unit in this Detachment is from the same Faction and that Faction is the same as your WARLORD’s Detachment." and just scratch the "can't have detachment rules" part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't see any issue with "mediocre" units, be it Lords of War or regular ones.

If everything you can field would at least be mediocre, that would be a big step up for a lot of unloved and forgotten units / wargear options.


I love the look of the Spartan and i really want to get one for my Night lords eventually. but paying 510 pts + 3cp + losing the legion trait for a gloryfied land raider that eats its payload feels pretty bad.


I think that you two agree, but have different opinion on what "mediocre" means.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 14:01:49


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Jidmah wrote:
My suggestion would probably look very similar to how fortifications work "Command Benefits: +3 Command points if every unit in this Detachment is from the same Faction and that Faction is the same as your WARLORD’s Detachment." and just scratch the "can't have detachment rules" part.
But WHY? What makes them so special that they should be free (of CP cost)?

If they're not appropriately costed, that's an issue of internal/external balance - why does a global detachment rule need to be changed in order to accommodate the few?

After 9 pages of discussion, I'm still not convinced that this is actually a game wide issue but just a wishlist (just as much as I wish LOW shouldn't be allowed in 40k).

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 17:07:48


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.

What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 17:13:05


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?


legion traits? Thats been said countless times in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
But WHY? What makes them so special that they should be free (of CP cost)?


Theyre already special because they are the only type of units that you cannot get 12cp in a 2000pts game if you play one. We're asking to remove that rule that makes them special (the detachment one)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 17:24:11


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Jidmah wrote:
Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.

What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.

Yeah but:
1. fortifications - ok, but LOW =! frotifications. What justifies providing same treatment as fortifications to LOWs?
2. flyers - but we don't have airwing detachments anymore. If you want more than 2 flyers, you have to continue to pay CP's to take more.
3. primarchs - supreme command detachment forces you to declare the WL on the unit taken in this detachment, which means you don't get the CP refund from patrol, batt or brigade.

Aside from fortification network, nothing is free - they all come at a compromise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?


legion traits? Thats been said countless times in this thread.
Which rule prohibits them from gaining faction traits? I thought this was only when you've souped a LOW from different faction.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 17:28:13


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 skchsan wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.

What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.

Yeah but:
1. fortifications - ok, but LOW =! frotifications. What justifies providing same treatment as fortifications to LOWs?
2. flyers - but we don't have airwing detachments anymore. If you want more than 2 flyers, you have to continue to pay CP's to take more.
3. primarchs - supreme command detachment forces you to declare the WL on the unit taken in this detachment, which means you don't get the CP refund from patrol, batt or brigade.

Aside from fortification network, nothing is free - they all come at a compromise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?


legion traits? Thats been said countless times in this thread.
Which rule prohibits them from gaining faction traits?


Well, you know, and every other type of slot.


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.

What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.

Yeah but:
1. fortifications - ok, but LOW =! frotifications. What justifies providing same treatment as fortifications to LOWs?
2. flyers - but we don't have airwing detachments anymore. If you want more than 2 flyers, you have to continue to pay CP's to take more.
3. primarchs - supreme command detachment forces you to declare the WL on the unit taken in this detachment, which means you don't get the CP refund from patrol, batt or brigade.

Aside from fortification network, nothing is free - they all come at a compromise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?


legion traits? Thats been said countless times in this thread.
Which rule prohibits them from gaining faction traits? I thought this was only when you've souped a LOW from different faction.



ok so youve been arguing all this time without knowing the rules?

Supreme command detachmetns refund your first patrol/batallion/brigade when your warlord is in them
Any detachment that has the "Auxiliary" name doesnt grant legion traits.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Ok, I concede my point on that. I did miss the 'Detachment Abilities' blurb.

Even then, my other points still stand - is missing out detachment abilities really that crippling to justify SHA being free if its from the same faction? Why the skew?

If SHA was free under specific circumstances, what happens to a Knight list? Do they pay 3/6 CP's on the SH detachment and rest of their LOW's are free of CP via SHA? Or do you make a special exclusion to the bonus for knights only?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 17:42:38


 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
Ok, I concede my point on that. I did miss the 'Detachment Abilities' blurb.

Even then, my other points still stand - is missing out detachment abilities really that crippling to justify SHA being free if its from the same faction? Why the skew?

If SHA was free under specific circumstances, what happens to a Knight list? Do they pay 3/6 CP's on the SH detachment and rest of their LOW's are free of CP?


Why not? they can already fit 5 lord of wars in a regular superheavy detachment. The only reason they'd take a SHA would be to soup another house but thats already fixed by only refunding it if its the same faction as the warlord.

Knights already get a FULL REFUND on the SH detachment, so a knights only lists starts with 12cp, Even if the detachment costs them 6cp

I have to repeat myself again : this change isnt targetted at knights and what was proposed does not affect them.

Your constant focus on knights makes you miss the point : We want our Wraithknights/Stompas/Fellblades/etc. to not be penalized for the sins of another army (which was already fixed with nerfs in the past anyway).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 17:43:40


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.

If anything, what should be changed is the SH detachment - make it so that it's min 1 max 5 (from min 3 to max 5), costs 3 CP's, must pay 6 CP's to include TITANIC (no more than 1), then either get rid of SHA or fold it into Auxiliary Support detachment with 2/3CP cost.

This way, if you want to take a single LOW, you take the SH detachment @ 3 CP's & doesn't get affected by 'Detachment Abilities' rule. If you want to soup, then you take that LOW via AS detachment. This way, a global rule applies fairly to all factions.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 18:07:41


 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


I said before i'd be fine with just having my faction rules. Ideally i wouldnt make it cost CP but i wouldnt ask my opponents to give me this , we've been talking about an ideal world where bringing 2 fire prism vs a wraithknight doesnt cost me more CP either way
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


The other detachments give you an excess of something you can access for free, if you take them it's to leverage something that's not part of a balanced army.

I want to put it to you the other way round. Why do you think a battalion/brigade shouldn't have a super heavy slot available?
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





Hanford, CA, AKA The Eye of Terror

 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


I would be happy with either/or for auxillary LoW. Either I lose 3cp, which is acceptable, or I lose the <Regiment> ability. Both is far too much a cost to bear for what often amounts to a mediocre unit. Baneblades are something that a guard army should be able to field without massive cost. Same goes for Primarchs in THEIR OWN LEGION/CHAPTER. Like why wouldn't Magnus or Guilliman be benefiting from their own rules....even if they have a better version! Points are fairly high for those units to begin with.

17,000 points (Valhallan)
10,000 points
6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
"Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"

-Imperial Guard Uplifting Primer 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: